Hitchcock wanna be - Secret Beyond the Door... (1948) Discussion

[–] MystMoonstruck 14 years ago

All of those elements were around long before "Rebecca" was written then filmed. Even before "Jane Eyre" they were in use by writers.

So far, Joan's character certainly is no "Second Mrs. de Winter", demure, jumpy and fearful of everyone. Celia has a darkness within her, rather like Rosalind Russell's character in "Night Must Fall", a rather cool exterior but with perversity hiding within, a fascination with murder and death. The same thing is true of "Suspicion", in which the wife is naive and rather introverted.

I wouldn't try to compare those Hitchcock films with Lang's work; to me, they do not fit beyond a troubled marriage. Lang tends to be much darker than Hitchcock works of the same period.

~~MystMoonstruck~~

reply

[–] tonstant viewer 13 years ago

It's absurd to accuse Lang of being a Hitchcock wannabee, when the relationship was the other way round. Lang was a superstar director in Berlin when Hitchcock was an apprentice set designer. Get your chronology right.

reply

[–] Flight_of_Fantasy 13 years ago

The OP is referring to this specific film, not the entirety of Lang's filmography. Rebecca and Spellbound DID come out before Secret Beyond the Door, and the similarities are striking. Lang himself admitted that Rebecca was an influence on Secret Beyond the Door.

Get your chronology right.

"He's already attracted to her. Time and monotony will do the rest."

reply

[–] zurichpoet 12 years ago

Yes, of course! Fritz Lang was weak in the image dept. until he watched a Hitchcock film! He probably just hired Stanley Cortez because he once ate a good bunch of shrimp from the Sea of Cortez. And just look at Metropolis. That film showed such a flippant grasp of craft, and a poverty of imagination.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Eumenides_0 11 years ago

I have nothing negative to say about Metropolis, or Destiny, which indeed have extraordinary visuals. But you have to agree this movie in particular didn't have great visuals, nothing out of the ordinary.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

reply

[–] EliotTempleton 9 years ago

WARNING: Spellbound spoilers ahead!

Why would a filmmaker with Lang's stature want to copy anything as shabby as Spellbound? I consider that film to be one of Hitchcock's worst, and for many valid reasons. The biggest issue with Spellbound is the laughably absurd script, which I can only describe with a mixed metaphor: it has more holes than Swiss cheese, large enough through which one could drive a Mack truck. Yes, psychiatrists are medical doctors, but to see a group of them performing surgery on Mr. Garmes is screamingly funny. From the beginning of the movie, Dr. Murchison is expecting his replacement, Dr. Edwardes, to arrive, knowing full well that he murdered him. And when he walks through the door and finds John Ballantyne impersonating Edwardes, he's only mildly surprised. Also amusing is the awkward substitution of the word love for one far more appropriate, sex. In particular, when Constance and Dr. Fleurot are discussing the case of Mary Carmichael, they keep referring to "love," when love is actually the furthest thing from the mind of the hell-bent-for-sex Miss Carmichael. I know this is a concession to the Production Code, but the situation is so laughable it would have been well for Hitchcock, Hecht, Selznick, et al to have avoided it entirely. And just how long does it take for spinsterish scientist Constance Petersen to fall in love with her new colleague? Two days? And then she continues to be "in love" with him despite all clues pointing to the fact that he's probably a homicidal maniac. All I can do is repeat the howler that William Holden snaps at Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard: "Did anyone read the script?" That Selznick's own shrink, Dr. May Romm, was the "technical advisor" on this misguided foray into pseudo-psychoanalysis did not bode well for the project. Hitchcock and the movie itself were Oscar-nominated, which illustrates the absurdity of that annual affair, and the movie cleaned up at the box-office, proving Mr. Barnum's axiom.

reply

[–] waldenpond88 8 years ago

Tonstant viewer is right. After "Metropolis" Fritz Lang was a famous director.
Now they made a German biopic with Heino Ferch playing Lang.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

It´s hard to say which one of the two - this or Hitchcock´s Spellbound - is more ridiculous in their dead-serious presentation of goofy pop-Freudian mumbo-jumbo. The film looks beautiful, Rosza´s score is impressive, but no film of which plot that relies entirely on laughable misconceptions concerning subconscious and psychoanalysis, can ultimately be successful. It´s a fundamentally shallow film and more heavy handed than Metropolis or M - which saying quite a bit I suppose.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] Eumenides_0 12 years ago

I didn't find the psycho-babble that grating in Spellbound. Besides, that movie had a remarkable sequence designed by Salvador Dalí. When I saw the poster for this movie, with the rhomboid door, that looked like something out of a German expressionist movie, I thought we were going to have some weird designs too. But this was a really tame movie.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WarpedRecord 10 years ago

So very true. This is a decent psychological thriller with mesmerizing direction and cinematography, but the attempt at psychological intrigue just felt derivative of the master of suspense to me. I'll give it 7/10 stars based on its strong production qualities, which make up for the script's failings.

reply

[–] DoctorJuliaHoffman 9 years ago

The opening credits of this film claim it was based upon a story by Rufus King. This is not actually the case. It was based upon Rufus King's full-length novel "Museum Piece No. 13". Considering Triangle Books reissued the novel in a hard cover edition retitled "Secret Beyond the Door" (with Joan Bennett and Michael Redgrave pictured on its dust jacket) and Bantam Books simultaneously reissued it in paperback as "Secret Beyond the Door" (with a painting of Joan Bennett on its cover), I'm surprised Universal didn't play up the novel in the film's opening credits. After all, the book editions were movie tie-ins printed to coincide with the film's release.

You can find the novel "Secret Beyond the Door" on eBay, Amazon and Abebooks. I have it. It's about a wealthy young bride who goes to live at her husband's mansion. On the estate, he has rooms where famous murders took place. He is desperate for money. She soon feels her life is in danger. The movie uses the skeleton of the novel. The novel has assorted other characters staying at the mansion. Many of the novel's characters were eliminated for the film so the mansion would seem more lonely and menacing to the young bride. SPOILERS AHEAD: The novel's ending is completely different from the film's. And, no, the bride does not die at the end of the novel.

reply

[–] waldenpond88 8 years ago

Did nobody notice that this is a version of Bluebeard?

reply